did you not read his posts assuming that climate = environment, and him misrepresenting most of my arguments? its on this page, its not too far up to look

it was right up there on the previous page, not too difficult to follow the string of posts


[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 1:17 AM. Reason : .]

11/28/2009 1:16:53 AM

If I were arguing semantics, then I'd point out that "The question is how much of an effect and whether that effect is negligible" is not at all the same as replying "I don't know."

But I'm not. Instead, I'm asking you personally this time:

If humans affect their environment, do they affect their climate?

Also climate is a part of the environment. Again, if we were arguing semantics.

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 1:20 AM. Reason : >.<]

11/28/2009 1:19:58 AM

Yes, if humans affect the environment at all, they probably affect the climate to some extent.

BUT ONCE AGAIN, does that influence trump natural cycles of a 5 billion year old system? Thats what you don't seem to be focusing on, when its the focal point of the entire thread and concept of climate change.

Feel free to post one single link relating any of your arguments to climate change, and I will HAPPILY address it. But for now, all you're doing is arguing about something that no climate scientists are even arguing for. To me that seems like you're still harping over your semantics argument about climate vs. environment. Please prove me wrong by posting a link.

Quote :

"Also climate is a part of the environment. Again, if we were arguing semantics."

already addressed it...multiple times...i dont know if you missed it because you were trolling, or for some other reason

Quote :

"It's not separate, the climate is a part of the environment, but nobody is saying humans don't have any impact on the environment as a whole. Climate change looks strictly at the climate, and ensuing effects. "

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 1:33 AM. Reason : .]

11/28/2009 1:22:19 AM

You understand that humans affect environment and cede that probably affects climate.

Now we're going to try an intuitive leap. As you know, global population growth is a positive trend. That trend is focused primarily on developing regions of the world: Asia, Africa.

When those countries begin to reach the manufacturing capacity of the industrial world and begin polluting their environment at the same level as the industrial world does today, would logically make the assumption that the impact to global climate will be overall negative?

11/28/2009 1:32:06 AM

If what the climate scientists say is true, then yes. So if its true, how do you "convince" China or India and their combined nearly 3 billion people to not do the things we've done as a country? Are you going to convince them that we did it, but they can't? We didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol for the simple reason that China and India didn't ratify it, because they have a lot of growth to do.

So lets bring this back to your argument about climate change. What is your argument exactly? That the US needs to take steps while the much larger developing countries fully intend to burn plenty of wood and coal to power their economies?

Of course, this is all dependent on carbon emissions causing major catastrophes that a 5 billion year old planet has never seen, which is still a hypothesis based on 100 years of loose data

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 1:38 AM. Reason : .]

11/28/2009 1:37:24 AM

humans clearly can’t have an effect on a global scale

11/28/2009 2:41:06 AM

Quote :

"And you would be putting words into my mouth with that statement."

Whatever the particulars of your conspiracy theory are is irrelevant. You are making a leap from questionable activity to conspiracy theory based on nothing but suspicion, and you have obstinately rejected any other possible explanation.

Quote :

"Where is there any evidence that ANYONE is "bombarding scientists with FoI requests?""

They talk of bullying by McINtyre with unnecessary FOI requests: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=935&filename=1226456830.txt

Quote :

"We are in double figures. ... In response to FOI and EIR requests, we've put up some data - mainly paleo data. Each request generally leads to more - to explain what we've put up. ... At present, I'm damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre's initial request for climate model data, I'm convinced (based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands for further explanations, additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully and written: "You see - he's guilty as charged!" on his website. "

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt

A scientist is harrassed by someone demanding the release of more information:

Quote :

"...who the hell do > you think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this"

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=974&filename=1242136391.txt

Quote :

"If simply asking to see the data is "bombarding scientists," then I'd say you need to re-evaluate what, exactly, you think science is."

Science does not work by having scientists spend their day granting requests for data by everyone. And they must comply with EVERYTHING or they’ll be accused of hiding something. This impedes scientific progress, except in the rare case that some kind of error is found. Transparency is a good thing, but not when it is abused. So it is understandable to me how some of them began to lose their professionalism.

Quote :

"hahaha. Militant deniers? Where do you get off even making that claim."

All it takes is a quick search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Quote :

"You bitch a LOT about the Heartland Institute, yet you have NEVER shown that the studies are, in fact, "bullshit." "

All it takes is a quick search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

11/28/2009 5:20:04 AM

Quote :

"They talk of bullying by McINtyre with unnecessary FOI requests"

Yes, that is how THEY SEE IT, but that is not necessarily HOW IT ACTUALLY IS. learn the difference.

Quote :

"All it takes is a quick search"

Wow, a wikipedia page proves everything. I never knew!!! I'll again ask you, where is ANY proof that there are any "militant deniers" out there. And, AGAIN, how does the fact that the Heartland Institute has published some studies in any way affect whether or not THE STUDIES WERE VALID.

Quote :

"Science does not work by having scientists spend their day granting requests for data by everyone."

It also doesn't work by denying all requests, either.

Quote :

"Transparency is a good thing, but not when it is abused."

You have yet to show that it was abused.

Quote :

"You are making a leap from questionable activity to conspiracy theory based on nothing but suspicion, and you have obstinately rejected any other possible explanation. "

Please, show me where I am doing this. I'm begging you, because I'm not seeing it. You are seriously moving the goalposts here. First it was "I presumed guilt on suspicion alone." Then it was "a conspiracy to distort science for petty personal reasons." Ironically, now it's back to "presuming guilt on suspicion alone." Which is it, dude? I've already addressed this! It's more than suspicion. It's "they say they will do X" then "they do X." Clearly, THEY FUCKING DID X. They said they wanted to "re-define peer-reviewed literature", then they bullied anyone who accepted peer-reviewed papers that they didn't agree with. it's pretty obvious what is happening. Please, tell me how this is a "conspiracy theory"!

It's funny. You claim I am promoting a "conspiracy theory," then you go out and suggest that McIntyre is conspiring to waste people's time, you claim that there is a conspiracy of "militant deniers." Maybe you need to level the conspiracy charges AT YOURSELF.

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 6:39 AM. Reason : ]

11/28/2009 6:37:05 AM

11/28/2009 7:38:26 AM

Quote :

"Please, show me where I am doing this."

"But, you are right, they are frustrated, but not because they know the issue is "proven." If it were proven, then there would be no need to play games with numbers and make fake hockey-stick generators and destroy data. No, they are frustrated because they see it crumbling around them. They see their lies being exposed"

This looks to me like you think they are conspiring to create false evidence. Would you like to try to spin that some other way?

Quote :

"Then it was "a conspiracy to distort science for petty personal reasons"

"No, Mann has made it CLEAR what his issue is. He doesn't like ANYONE saying stuff contrary to his beliefs."

The implication here is the Mann has a personal grudge against anyone who disagrees with him, and thus his actions are related to that. Even though you have provided nothing to support that assertion.

Quote :

"Wow, a wikipedia page proves everything. I never knew!!!"

That's why I only bothered to provide wikipedia articles. I figured you would largely ignore any source, like the rest of what I posted.

Quote :

"I'll again ask you, where is ANY proof that there are any "militant deniers" out there. "

You're one of them. You don't trust anything from mainstream science, but will back anything from skeptic blogs or conservative organizations that put out a study. You refuse to acknowledge any evidence in support of global warming because you think the scientists are all corrupt. And you're ready to attack anyone here who does support it.

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM. Reason : .]

11/28/2009 4:13:10 PM

Quote :

"You're one of them. You don't trust anything from mainstream science, but will back anything from skeptic blogs or conservative organizations that put out a study. You refuse to acknowledge any evidence in support of global warming because you think the scientists are all corrupt. And you're ready to attack anyone here who does support it. "

Wow, you just described salisburyboy but for global warming.

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 4:18 PM. Reason : ]

11/28/2009 4:17:58 PM

Quote :

""

Yeah, and if the eco-Marxists have their way, we'll probably look more like North Korea.

11/28/2009 7:19:08 PM

So now that it's been proved by mountains of evidence that global warming was a massive lie, can we lock this thread?

11/29/2009 11:34:39 AM

FYI:

Taking the private jet to Copenhagen
November 29, 2009

Quote :

"The Copenhagen summit next week will generate vast quantities of hot air. It will see 16,500 people coming in from 192 countries. That amounts to 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006. Also, the organisers will lay 900 kilometres of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet. More than 200,000 meals will be served and visitors will drink 200,000 cups of coffee — at least that will be organic. When asked if the carbon footprint might have been reduced by turning Copenhagen into a video conference, a spokesman for the event said: 'For such a major agreement, people need to meet together and negotiate face to face. We have delegates from all over the world. Video-conferencing systems are extremely useful, but they don’t match the personal touch. This is one of the main factors in having a good conference.'"

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/celebrity/article6931572.ece

To summarize:

-16,500 people coming in from 192 countries.

-41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006.

-The organizers will lay 900 kilometres of computer cable.

-The organizers will lay 50,000 square miles of carpet.

-More than 200,000 meals will be served and visitors will drink 200,000 cups of coffee.

12/1/2009 3:59:32 AM

obviously the flights/carpet is worth pointing out, but the coffee and food would be consumed whether or not the 16,500 guests were staying at home or in copenhagen.

don't be a dumbass and don't take stupid cheap shots. they weaken the larger points.

12/1/2009 8:27:44 AM

^ Dude, shut the fuck up.

First, as I indicated, I was simply summarizing the quantitative points in the article. Second, you don't know the source of the coffee or the food--it could've been flown halfway around the world for all you know, as opposed to being purchased from local sources. Third, you don't know the preparation methods of the coffee or the food--was the coffee heated and the food cooked with, say, solar power as it might be in one's home? Fourth, you don't know that "200,000" would've even had coffee if it weren't provided--maybe they would've had water at home.

In any event, the point of the article stands on its merits. If anybody's being a dumbass, it's you.

12/1/2009 9:00:52 AM

coffee and food is flown all around all the time - in fact, it may have even HELPED reduce emissions, that they concentrated its destination for this period of time instead of continuing to distribute it widely.

12/1/2009 10:54:25 AM

Quote :

"41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006."

haaa. sounds like quite the preparations to just talk about some 'spiked data' for a few days. the entire premise of this trip is for these sick fucks to find some denmark horz and nothing more. the conference itself is just a bonus for free food and gloating about each others 'made up' accomplishments lieing to the rest of human civilization for the past 10 years successfully.

THEY LOVE HALF YOU GUYS HERE!!!! they. are. your. biggest. fans!!

remember when agentlion posted this back on page 1????
makes you sick now thinking about how we believed it all.



[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM. Reason : 43]

12/1/2009 11:03:22 AM

^you forgot to mention how they're getting together to try and form an international body with authority over all nations in regards to energy usage (which in effect controls everything).

Gotta love it.

12/1/2009 11:27:06 AM

schools controlled? check
health care controlled? check
energy controlled? ____almost!____

whats next

12/1/2009 12:14:29 PM

BBC columnist provides perspective, criticism on hacked email revelations:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8387365.stm

12/1/2009 12:24:28 PM

oh look. the bbc.

bbc = same guys that spiked the climate data for years. oooh wat a coincidence.

12/1/2009 2:12:55 PM

The BBC is actually pretty reliable when it comes to their environmental reporting. Not sure why you're hating on them.

12/1/2009 2:14:43 PM

yes, they are reliable.

very reliable global warmists.

12/1/2009 3:06:39 PM

ladies and gentlemen.... i introduce to all of you... the man behind the curtain.....



[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 7:50 PM. Reason : 8]

12/1/2009 7:48:02 PM

Quote :

"Professor Phil Jones said: "What is most important is that CRU continues its world-leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. "After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the director's role during the course of the independent review.""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/8389727.stm

This is good news, but I wonder what the deniers will say if the review turns up no wrong-doing?

12/1/2009 7:48:14 PM

Quote :

"This looks to me like you think they are conspiring to create false evidence. Would you like to try to spin that some other way?"

How is me pointing out a fact, that they made up numbers and created a fraudulent study, in any way akin to saying there is a conspiracy?

Quote :

"The implication here is the Mann has a personal grudge against anyone who disagrees with him, and thus his actions are related to that."

Implication would be you putting words in my mouth.

Quote :

"That's why I only bothered to provide wikipedia articles. I figured you would largely ignore any source, like the rest of what I posted. "

So, basically, you have nothing to show that the Heritage Foundation studies were flawed. Got it.

Quote :

"You're one of them. You don't trust anything from mainstream science, but will back anything from skeptic blogs or conservative organizations that put out a study. You refuse to acknowledge any evidence in support of global warming because you think the scientists are all corrupt. And you're ready to attack anyone here who does support it."

Don't you think that's a bit of a leap? Where have I stated I won't trust anything from mainstream science. I seem to admit that the world is round. I admit that bacteria exist. Hell, I even acknowledge evolution! But I don't "trust mainstream science?" Come on...



Anyway, I think the most telling thing about this all is how NO major scientific groups have come out and said anything about this. No one has said "uhhh, deleting data and emails is wrong, k?" No, carzak, i'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I'm just saying that it's odd that, in a field of people who value openness and the free exchange of ideas, few, if any, of the major players have come out and said "this shit is wrong."

12/1/2009 7:49:41 PM

Quote :

"This is good news, but I wonder what the deniers will say if the review turns up no wrong-doing? "

does your religious priest phil have you by your proverbial nut sack this time yet again???? haaa. you are worse than any evangelist following a preacher lying to his 'congregation'

ha

independent review my ass! they are all scheming man. you are not only playing right into it but sending out messages like you were some kind of 'missionary' for him. WOW. UTTERLY INSANE.


[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM. Reason : 54]

12/1/2009 7:51:59 PM

^^

Quote :

"Nevertheless, e-mails allegedly sent by Jones seem to illustrate his reluctance to comply with these [the FOI] requests. "All scientists have the right to request your data and to try to falsify your results," says Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany. "I very much respect Jones as a scientist, but he should be aware that his behaviour is beginning to damage our discipline.""

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091124/full/462397a.html

12/1/2009 8:05:32 PM

You do realize that Storch is one of the guys that Mann and his buddies tried to destroy, right?

12/1/2009 8:16:50 PM

That's irrelevant to my point. You said 'no major scientific groups have come out and said anything about this.' I'm pointing out that isn't true. Storch is a scientist, and his comments were published by one of the most prestigious scientific publishing groups (Nature).

I don't believe that generalizing and suggesting that scientists don't 'value openness and the free exchange of ideas' because of a few bad apples is fair.

You probably won't see a lot of scientist talking about this in mainstream media (CNN/MSNBC/Fox/ect), but they'll likely debate these issues amongst themselves on forums such as Nature. Scientist could and should be better at communication with general public.

12/1/2009 8:49:45 PM

Quote :

"That's irrelevant to my point. "

no it's not. Storch was pretty much ruined by Mann and his cronies. Do you really think he is going to have anything good to say about Mann? wake up


[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 8:59 PM. Reason : ]

12/1/2009 8:58:47 PM

Quote :

"Scientist could and should be better at communication with general public."

yeh its called show your data to a thing we call a fucking 'journalist' without tampering with it.

12/1/2009 9:00:16 PM

^You're like aaronburro's retarded brother. Actually, I thought you were his troll alias.

12/1/2009 9:47:04 PM

the AGW worshippers are pissed

12/1/2009 9:49:19 PM

Quote :

"You're like aaronburro's retarded brother. Actually, I thought you were his troll alias."

I've noticed that his M.O. seems to be that of being like a male Ann Coulter. Say something stupid, uninformed, or border-line racist/idiotic/whatever, and call it "discussing" an issue.

12/1/2009 10:02:44 PM

Quote :

"Where have I stated I won't trust anything from mainstream science. I seem to admit that the world is round. I admit that bacteria exist."

Lol. I did not expect you to completely miss out on context there. I guess I should have said "You don't trust anything from mainstream science regarding global warming, but I guess I felt like that would have been redundant.

Quote :

"Anyway, I think the most telling thing about this all is how NO major scientific groups have come out and said anything about this. No one has said "uhhh, deleting data and emails is wrong, k?" "

The article I posted earlier:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8387365.stm

I know, reading can make you change your mind about things, so it sucks.

12/1/2009 10:31:47 PM

but but but... pack_bryan proved that the BBC is biased about global warming... because he said they were...

12/1/2009 10:34:24 PM

humans clearly can’t have an effect on a global scale

12/1/2009 10:52:14 PM

Um, that's not a globe. And that's a pretty absurd extreme.

12/1/2009 10:53:32 PM

Oh I thought we could post pictures of lights as proof of global warming. I was following Moron's lead.

12/1/2009 10:59:41 PM

^ haha nice

i like the way you played that. set it up well, with a flawless finish.

12/1/2009 11:14:47 PM

I wonder how much carbon it takes to light up all that.

12/1/2009 11:18:49 PM

thanks, just having some fun. Some of the stuff you see on here is fing ridiculous.

Optimum, it was much much clearer and brighter before the SUV. Its makes me sad to look at that picture now. But if you send 1 dollar to my fund Ill buy a cracketmoon that will help restore it to its original beauty.. but we have to act quickly. The cracketmoon... err... carbon credit (yah that sounds like a better made up line of BS) is the only way to save us.

[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 11:23 PM. Reason : ]

12/1/2009 11:19:15 PM

I'll buy a round of cracketmoons

12/1/2009 11:30:56 PM

Quote :

"What you see in the emails is scientists grappling with not the best data and trying to make sense of it, which is a normal thing to see. And these same folks feeling like they are under siege by the skeptics. But you also see a set of behaviors that I don’t recognize as normal; trying to keep people out of the peer-review literature, and avoiding FOI requests. This doesn’t change anything about the scientific conclusions. But we want as full and open a discussion as possible."

-Eduardo Zorita of Germany’s GKSS

Quote :

"Some climate scientists say that heads should roll. Eduardo Zorita, at Germany’s GKSS, called for Mann and CRU Director Phil Jones to be barred from IPCC. Junior researchers have been “bullied and subtly blackmailed” by senior IPCC authors “to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture,' ” Zorita writes."

-a senior U.S. science official

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/climate-hack-sc.html

Science, one of the most prestigious scientific journals.

Sigh..

12/1/2009 11:33:20 PM

If someone doesn't spoon feed it to him, it doesn't exist. And that's not always a guarantee...

12/2/2009 12:55:38 AM

Quote :

"Lol. I did not expect you to completely miss out on context there. I guess I should have said "You don't trust anything from mainstream science regarding global warming, but I guess I felt like that would have been redundant. "

moving the goalposts, i see. but, why should i believe the "mainstream science" when it has so clearly been wrong? When the predictions of "mainstream science" turn out wrong time after time and when its vaunted computer models fail to predict what is happening, why the fuck should I believe it? Tell me that

Quote :

"Eduardo Zorita of Germany’s GKSS... a senior US scientific official"

note that I said scientific groups. reading is FUNDAMENAL

12/2/2009 6:39:04 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, and if the eco-Marxists have their way, we'll probably look more like North Korea."

Looking "more like" North Korea wouldn't actually be all that bad. The amount of energy that is wasted from unused night lighting as well as the number of birds that are killed as a result is staggering.

12/2/2009 9:26:34 AM

ibtbird haters

12/2/2009 9:39:21 AM